Atheist Group Sues NYC, Bloomberg in Protest of WTC Memorial Cross

Originally posted by SaturnFX


We are telling the government to take no view...do not put any religious symbols up whatsoever...stay out of religion.
that is not a view being pushed, that is saying "do not have a view on my tax dollar in regards to religion..just ignore the whole thing completely".

Which is an affront to religions all together.

alternatively, they could try to be equal and put up several hundreds of religious symbols...but its much cheaper and more sane to put none up whatsoever.

Indeed. But should a group be disenfranchised because it is cheaper that way?

Its unnecessary, and a clear violation...this is not a live and let live...its a live and live by what I believe in, and don't bitch about it...thats bull...live and let live is, put up nothing to show religion, but don't stop people from praying there and holding their own religious symbols...if a person wants to hold a cross, or a goat head emblem and chant, thats their right and I would argue that they should be able to do that...

Same could be said on the other side of the coin. If a person wants to not believe in any god(s), more power to them.

If a symbol of a cross is such a big deal, then a lack of a symbol of a cross would be equally a big deal to the other party.

It is a catch-22.

Originally posted by Peteos
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

Did anyone else see the episode of Penn and Tellers Bull**** that covered the WTC memorial? I really liked their final idea; just rebuild the towers. 'Business as usual'.

Sounds good to me.

Simple FYI:

The symbol of the cross (even the modern simple cross) has been used for far longer than Christianity has been around. It has been used as a grave marker in Europe, Asia, Africa, and even America for as long as known history.

I know...why do we never see that on the history channel. Plain and simple answer, only the important people got the important markers. They were usually very ornate and very solid (stone) in comparison to what an average person would have recieved.

Current belief is that the cross (in all it's varied forms) became a common marker due to ease of construction and accessability of building materials. It is also believed that the horizontal bar was raised on the vertical to increase it's noticability from surrounding vertical objects (trees I imagine).

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh

Originally posted by SaturnFX


We are telling the government to take no view...do not put any religious symbols up whatsoever...stay out of religion.
that is not a view being pushed, that is saying "do not have a view on my tax dollar in regards to religion..just ignore the whole thing completely".

Which is an affront to religions all together.

No, it's not. It's simply stating that religion and government / state are separate, incompatible entities, as religion is a personal preference. You cannot have a Christian government, for example; you can have Christians in government, but not a Christian government. The days of state-sanctioned religion are gladly far behind us; at least I thought they were.

this doesn't make a whole lotta sense because the atheists are using "separation of church and state" which isn't in the constitution.

it was an idea in a private letter written by jefferson to prevent the situation in britan happening over here. where the king is also the head of the church. governing the nation shouldn't involve the church, and the state shouldn't be able to impose on the church.

a cross at the 9/11 memorial doesn't even violate the theory of separation of church and state. and saying religion is responsible for 9/11 is silly. does anyone still believe in the official story?

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


No, but until someone confesses, we have to go along with the majority who do believe the official story. In this case I don't think it really matters though; people still died, and they deserve to be commemorated - who flew the planes doesn't factor into it at this point.

. It's a simple case of showing respect; it is being placed to commemorate those that died in the attack - to use a religious icon is bordering on insulting to the memory of those killed.

Is it? If that’s the case then I refer you back to my original statement of removing the headstones at Arlington. Would these not be civilian casualties of war and deserve no less respect and treatment fallen soldiers? (I found this link interesting Approved symbols on Arlington Headstones There's even one in there for atheist.)

Were any family members of this atheist group killed? If so, then perhaps that a legitimate claim, other wise, it just seems like they are complaining just to complain.

reply to post by amaster


If I'm understanding this correctly, there's a headstone at Arlington for every individual - as the symbol used is a personal preference, then that's absolutely fine. This demonstrates well the difference between an individual grave, and the mass memorial that's being planned.

It doesn't matter if an atheist was killed in the attack or not; people of varied religious (and otherwise) backgrounds were killed, so using the symbol of only one religion shouldn't even enter into thought.

reply to post by amaster


The headstones at AC are commemorating the individual person buried under the headstone. it is not an offical stance on the army as a whole nor a single religion..it is simply the chosen respectful stone depending on the person's choice whom died.

If the AC decided to plant a cross on every grave no matter what, then there is an issue, yes...but individual choice on their symbol is fine. That is not a violation as no statement is being made about the quality or issue of any specific religion.

My issue personally with the cemetary is, its bland and a waste of space. we really need to be cremating people now verses taking up massive acreage to stuff broken shells for ? purpose. a grave should be the size of a breadbasket in my opinion and stacked 30 high in a memorial building.

reply to post by Peteos


maybe i didn't make my point clear. i meant that everyone is blaming it on religion when the religion responsible is money.

so many people talk about religion causing all wars forget about hitler, mussolini, and stalin. atheists can cause genocide too, and much more effectively.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by Peteos

 

maybe i didn't make my point clear. i meant that everyone is blaming it on religion when the religion responsible is money.

so many people talk about religion causing all wars forget about hitler, mussolini, and stalin. atheists can cause genocide too, and much more effectively.

Hitler was christian.
2nd

reply to post by SaturnFX

The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death.... When understanding of the universe has become widespread... Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity.... Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity.... And that's why someday its structure will collapse.... ...the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little.... Christianity the liar.... We'll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State.

-hitler.

Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery.... .... When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let's be the only people who are immunised against the disease.

also hitler.

reply to post by Bob Sholtz


I am sure you have come across the hundreds of pro-christian statements by hitler.

He hated the church, that is without a doubt...but he was very connected to his own personal deity...he wanted to recreate the church into his image.
Aka, he believed in a god and that that god was guiding him...that in its very nature is not an atheist.

If someone calls themself a christian, well, I tend to believe them...would I call him the typical christian? no...more like a twisted sycophant style jim jones/koresh style.

I have spent many a years debating with christians that blast the church all the time, they say its corrupt and all but evil, yet they consider themselves christian.
Even people on ATS here that many pass off as just a fundy christian have spoken to me fairly viciously about christianity (churchianity)...a christian is allowed to have very unfavorable opinions about the church corp

But meh, all hair splitting anyhow. Hitler may have thought he was on a mission from god, but I wouldn't say his actions were representative of modern day christianity or theism in general...he was a wackjob with some good ideas put on top of some very bad ideas.

reply to post by SaturnFX


And Stalin (who killed far more than Hitler) was an Aetheist.

What is your point? That crazy is not religion dependant?

I laugh at the blame religion...religion is not the issue, extremism is the issue. An extremist will use whatever tool (religion, money, violence, etc.) to get their message across.

Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by SaturnFX

 

And Stalin (who killed far more than Hitler) was an Aetheist.

What is your point? That crazy is not religion dependant?

I laugh at the blame religion...religion is not the issue, extremism is the issue. An extremist will use whatever tool (religion, money, violence, etc.) to get their message across.

There is a difference
One says, lets exterminate a bunch of people whom do not bow to government...verses exterminate a bunch of people whom do not bow to a religion.

Actually, I take it back, both are simply conceptual philosophies requiring a system of belief in order for it to exist...government is more practical in its outcome than religion mind you, but both are simple demands for a belief and obedience of an idea.

I think I literally may have just talked myself out of a defense...belief itself is the enemy...well, extreme belief, be it of god, government, or other aspects that cause submission or death.

reply to post by SaturnFX


Have you ended up where I have?

Extremism is the issue. Everything else is simply a tool used by extremists to further their personal agenda.

reply to post by peck420


Tools, aren't we all

reply to post by Glass


I think that the cross is offensive to atheists because it is a defiant statement against the Islamist terrorists who blew up the towers. It is saying "screw you, Islam, Amurka is Christian and always will be," affirming a religious conflict on both sides. It subtly reinforces the Crusade rhetoric surrounding the war on terror (Bush claiming "God" wanted him to attack Muslims, et cetera).

The memorial ought to be non-religious because then it leaves behind the petty struggles of Christendom against Dar al-Islam.


Also, removing this stupid cross isn't violating freedom of religion. Who is expressing their religion by installing the cross? The officials of the City of New York? Does the free exercise of religion require that my religion's symbol be installed on public property? Or is it only the religious symbol valued by the majority of private individuals that has to be imposed on the property held in common trust for everybody?

Originally posted by Peteos

. . .

No, it's not. It's simply stating that religion and government / state are separate, incompatible entities, as religion is a personal preference.

Which the free exercise of can't be tampered with

You cannot have a Christian government, for example; you can have Christians in government, but not a Christian government.

The state can't dictate to you what you should worship.

How is erecting a cross dictating to you to worship what it stands for?

Whatever your answer is, go to the converse. By disallowing any religious symbols, the state is forcing religious peoples to Atheism, and prohibiting their right to exercise their religion.

If it is good for the goose, it is good for the gander.

It is a glaring double standard, which would be easily resolved by using the words of the Constitution, and not twisting the external writings and musings of the founding fathers.

The days of state-sanctioned religion are gladly far behind us; at least I thought they were.

Ditto that. I am glad to live here in the US. Now if we could all just get along and quit bugging out and live and let live.

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap


. . . Who is expressing their religion by installing the cross?

. . .

And so on the other side of the fence . . . who is expressing religion by installing the cross? If no one is expressing religion by installing it, then the Atheists can't say that it is a violation.

Simple logic here.





reply to post by SaturnFX



By the way . . . your blinking frog freaks me out.